The question must be asked. I wish I didn't have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me. Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? My answer is an unequivocal no. It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don't acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation. You can look it up, as they say, but here are some facts that may have eluded you:
The Obama campaign willingly accepted foreign campaign funds. They were not obliged to accept it but they did. They accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2008 and got away with it, so why would they not expect to do so again. They favorite mantra of Obama is "Nobody told me anything about it!" He refused to identify donors of $200 or less, though most of the funds were supposedly small donations.
Did anyone other than my friends and family see the videos captured by James O'Keefe of the Project Veritas--remember him exposing the ACORN people trying to facilitate prostitution rings?--showing Democrats operatives willing and eager to help commit voter fraud by allowing people to cast numerous votes.
And again, as is the case when Democrats run the Defense Department, our service men and women were systematically denied the opportunity to have their votes count. If there was public service union for our members of the military, I suspect that they would be driven to the polls, given coffee and pastries and told who to vote for. But, the very people who fight to allow us the freedom of voting have to jump through unrealistic hoops to do the same.
Then there is the photo ID requirement. Democrats believe that photo ID requirements suppress the vote.They do, of course, but only illegal votes, which Democrats apparently need in very close elections. The same logic should be used in most everything where photo IDs are normally required. Photo IDs suppress illegal activities like writing bad checks, credit card theft, purchasing illegal substances, illegally driving a car, getting into the Democrat convention, etc. By coincidence, Obama won every state where open voting--no ID required--was the law. I mean seriously folks, there is absolutely no good argument for not requiring someone to provide proof of who they are before the perform their sacred American duty of casting a vote. That right to have your vote count one time and only one time should be protected. Yet even when governments try to provide photo IDs at little or no cost to the voter, Democrats are against it. The obvious answer is that it cuts down on their cheating options.
In Philadelphia, Republican poll inspectors were forcibly removed from voting sites where Obama was the winner of nearly 100% of the vote. In Ward 4, where a poll watcher was wearing an Obama shirt
, the vote was 9,955 for Obama and 55 for Romney. Really? In today's economy? 9,955 to 55? Obama also won 44 Cleveland voting districts by 99.8%. In one Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the registered voters. Then there are the numerous reports of voters trying to vote for Romney in an electronic voting booth but every time they pushed the button for Romney, Obama's name was marked. It never seemed to happen the other way around. Who knows how many people did not catch the "glitch"? Interestingly, Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008 while Obam snared 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. But Obama the 4 most critical swing states by only 500,000 votes. It was also reported that about 5 million independents who voted for Obama in 2008 changed this time around and voted for Romney. This would suggest that nearly 5.5 million Republican and Romney independent votes were either did not show up or their votes were not counted.
So I ask again, did Obam win? Yes. Did he actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? If you think so, you are delusional. If you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, and do not care, and think that the ends justify the means, you are killing this great country. Granted,voter fraud has been around since this country began. Fraud has determined the outcome of way too many elections in local, state, and federal levels, but we do not have to like it and we do not have to quietly accept it.
The Obama campaign willingly accepted foreign campaign funds. They were not obliged to accept it but they did. They accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2008 and got away with it, so why would they not expect to do so again. They favorite mantra of Obama is "Nobody told me anything about it!" He refused to identify donors of $200 or less, though most of the funds were supposedly small donations.
Did anyone other than my friends and family see the videos captured by James O'Keefe of the Project Veritas--remember him exposing the ACORN people trying to facilitate prostitution rings?--showing Democrats operatives willing and eager to help commit voter fraud by allowing people to cast numerous votes.
And again, as is the case when Democrats run the Defense Department, our service men and women were systematically denied the opportunity to have their votes count. If there was public service union for our members of the military, I suspect that they would be driven to the polls, given coffee and pastries and told who to vote for. But, the very people who fight to allow us the freedom of voting have to jump through unrealistic hoops to do the same.
Then there is the photo ID requirement. Democrats believe that photo ID requirements suppress the vote.They do, of course, but only illegal votes, which Democrats apparently need in very close elections. The same logic should be used in most everything where photo IDs are normally required. Photo IDs suppress illegal activities like writing bad checks, credit card theft, purchasing illegal substances, illegally driving a car, getting into the Democrat convention, etc. By coincidence, Obama won every state where open voting--no ID required--was the law. I mean seriously folks, there is absolutely no good argument for not requiring someone to provide proof of who they are before the perform their sacred American duty of casting a vote. That right to have your vote count one time and only one time should be protected. Yet even when governments try to provide photo IDs at little or no cost to the voter, Democrats are against it. The obvious answer is that it cuts down on their cheating options.
In Philadelphia, Republican poll inspectors were forcibly removed from voting sites where Obama was the winner of nearly 100% of the vote. In Ward 4, where a poll watcher was wearing an Obama shirt
, the vote was 9,955 for Obama and 55 for Romney. Really? In today's economy? 9,955 to 55? Obama also won 44 Cleveland voting districts by 99.8%. In one Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the registered voters. Then there are the numerous reports of voters trying to vote for Romney in an electronic voting booth but every time they pushed the button for Romney, Obama's name was marked. It never seemed to happen the other way around. Who knows how many people did not catch the "glitch"? Interestingly, Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008 while Obam snared 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. But Obama the 4 most critical swing states by only 500,000 votes. It was also reported that about 5 million independents who voted for Obama in 2008 changed this time around and voted for Romney. This would suggest that nearly 5.5 million Republican and Romney independent votes were either did not show up or their votes were not counted.
So I ask again, did Obam win? Yes. Did he actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? If you think so, you are delusional. If you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, and do not care, and think that the ends justify the means, you are killing this great country. Granted,voter fraud has been around since this country began. Fraud has determined the outcome of way too many elections in local, state, and federal levels, but we do not have to like it and we do not have to quietly accept it.
2 comments:
I agree with you 100%, but I don't think the evidence you have presented would be sufficient to conclude that Obama would have lost had all the issue you mentioned were resolved. I also don't think there is strong enough evidence for Congress to act in a serious way to investigate the election. I'm not saying that don't think they should. I am not saying that I think these issues shouldn't be investigated...I just don't think Congress would take any less than a smoking gun with blood on it and the killer's name before they did anything.
I have no argument about any authorities getting involved. It would never happen under the present circumstances. We will never know if the result could have been different unless a thorough investigation were done. I hate to see anyone get away with this type of crap. If the shoes were on different feet the clamor would reach to high Heaven.
Post a Comment